human909 wrote:The key point of Critical Mass and the VERY brief and VERY occasional disruption of is that it is so rare! Motorists cause that disruption EVERYDAY of the year. How is the traffic and disruption from motorists not wilful and deliberate?

This is the second thread in two days where I've seen you apparently struggling to see the distinction between deliberate and incidental effects of actions.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I really don't think that the people stuck in traffic jams of a weekday morning have set out to bring traffic to a standstill.

Yes something wrong with me... and every single other person held up. We all should zen out, perhaps stop and have a group meditation session. Why would any us dare to get angry with a group of people that deliberately, dangerously and aggressively, disrupt thousands, if not tens of thousands of people's lives.

There's defiantly something wrong with me and the rest of the people in cars, why we should be sitting there happily aspiring to be more like the loonies making it impossible to pick the kids up from child care in time. Or perhaps contemplate our tin box existence while we sit there with half a tonne of gear in the back of the ute wondering if somehow it could be transported by bike, because then magically we would be home on time and our elderly parents, one with early onset dementia wouldn't be stressed out looking after the kids for an hour longer than they can cope.

I think I need help! Defiantly not normal to get angry when a small group of fanatical people DELIBERATELY go out of their way to make thousands of people's lives difficult all for NO good reason.

wombatK wrote:At the head of every trafficQueue you will find queue jumpers whose deliberate and anti social actions cause or worsen the jam.so thousands of motorists are causing lots more delay than cyclists or critical mass every hour of the day.But such beggar Thy neighbour behaviour is ok or even something to be smug about. Just trying to get there quick as they can, beggar everyone else.

Apart from the fact that all that is completely irrelevant (just because Johny stole an apple doesn't mean it's ok for you to steal 100), I believe it is also counter to traffic engineers understanding of traffic flow. I do recall reading studies of traffic flow with and without que jumpers and lane changers and overall they improved the flow of the system by jumping in and out of lanes and filtering through the more immobile cars. But like I say irrelevant.

wombatK wrote:At the head of every trafficQueue you will find queue jumpers whose deliberate and anti social actions cause or worsen the jam.so thousands of motorists are causing lots more delay than cyclists or critical mass every hour of the day.But such beggar Thy neighbour behaviour is ok or even something to be smug about. Just trying to get there quick as they can, beggar everyone else.

Apart from the fact that all that is completely irrelevant (just because Johny stole an apple doesn't mean it's ok for you to steal 100), I believe it is also counter to traffic engineers understanding of traffic flow. I do recall reading studies of traffic flow with and without que jumpers and lane changers and overall they improved the flow of the system by jumping in and out of lanes and filtering through the more immobile cars. But like I say irrelevant.

I think you are misreading the other persons post.

When a DRIVER queue jumps, they typically block the lane they are in, whilst they wait for the lane they want to get into to move, where as the drivers who take an early chance to merge cleanly when the traffic is still moving, or join the end of the queue where its formed does not block other lanes. On a 4 lane road (2 per direction), they'll have managed to halt all traffic in their direction to avoid waiting behind half a dozen cars, and on a 6 lane road, the person behind them will inevitably stick the indicator on and create a merge pinch in the next lane as well.

Alien27 wrote: Why would any us dare to get angry with a group of people that deliberately, dangerously and aggressively, disrupt thousands, if not tens of thousands of people's lives.

Are you talking about a few hundred cyclists here? Or the thousands of motorists who engage in this sort of behaviour daily in our cities (yes, often deliberately) as wel)?

I'm talking about the group known as Critical Mass... If you start a thread asking for opinions on another group that drives cars or trucks or some other form of transport and deliberately sets out to disrupt peak hour traffic, then ill have my critical 2c on them in that thread as well.

wombatK wrote:At the head of every trafficQueue you will find queue jumpers whose deliberate and anti social actions cause or worsen the jam.so thousands of motorists are causing lots more delay than cyclists or critical mass every hour of the day.But such beggar Thy neighbour behaviour is ok or even something to be smug about. Just trying to get there quick as they can, beggar everyone else.

Apart from the fact that all that is completely irrelevant (just because Johny stole an apple doesn't mean it's ok for you to steal 100), I believe it is also counter to traffic engineers understanding of traffic flow. I do recall reading studies of traffic flow with and without que jumpers and lane changers and overall they improved the flow of the system by jumping in and out of lanes and filtering through the more immobile cars. But like I say irrelevant.

I think you are misreading the other persons post.

When a DRIVER queue jumps, they typically block the lane they are in, whilst they wait for the lane they want to get into to move, where as the drivers who take an early chance to merge cleanly when the traffic is still moving, or join the end of the queue where its formed does not block other lanes. On a 4 lane road (2 per direction), they'll have managed to halt all traffic in their direction to avoid waiting behind half a dozen cars, and on a 6 lane road, the person behind them will inevitably stick the indicator on and create a merge pinch in the next lane as well.

You may be right, you may be wrong, but your defiantly off topic. Like I said irrelevant. Just because there are crap and selfish drivers does not make it ok for Critical Mass to act like they did.

Alien27 wrote:You may be right, you may be wrong, but your defiantly off topic. Like I said irrelevant. Just because there are crap and selfish drivers does not make it ok for Critical Mass to act like they did.

This is a thread about the disruption of traffic, and disruption of traffic is apparently what you dislike intensely, and the disruption of traffic is YOUR tangent.

Motorists kill nearly 200 pedestrians a year in Australia, but that toll is basically equated to weather in a car oriented society. Critical mass is but one of many things that remind people that cities should be designed for people, and not for cars.

Last edited by zero on Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

greyhoundtom wrote:Ah the frailties of the human race........might be an improvement if they did legalise marijuana.

I'm not a user nor do i have a desire to use (think lung capacity) but i think a few highly strung, tightly wound folk around here could heed this advice.

or at least sit down, have a beer and realise that none of this actually matters.

I have 3 specialist appointments/tests this week for lung function, and sport induced asthma so I cant ride and am spending a lot of time in hospital waiting rooms. So a good hearty debate passes the time nicely

Its funny I was just asked if I ever smoked, I said no, she said 'that includes marijuana', I said no again and gave her a funny look and a grin, she then said 'not that you look like a marijuana smoker or anything'. I think she couldn't wait to get home to have a puff and just had weed on the mind

Initial results are that I have no underlying asthma and my lung function, haemoglobin (or something like that), blood pressure and and other things she checked were all very good. I'm back next Thursday to do the stress test to see if they can induce my sports induced asthma.

Alien27 wrote:I'm talking about the group known as Critical Mass... If you start a thread asking for opinions on another group that drives cars or trucks or some other form of transport and deliberately sets out to disrupt peak hour traffic, then ill have my critical 2c on them in that thread as well.

I agree.

I don't see right or wrong based on cyclists vs drivers. Fact is, they are just the same cohort of people (in a society) using different hardwares. Idiots will be idiots irrespective of what equipment they use. In this discussion, I am critical of CM's behaviour in choosing a busy time to inconvenience fellow road users. At the same time, I can be equally critical of all other road users who electively actions, leading to others' inconvenience. Quantum of time delay is not the criteria but the presence or absence of time delay is.

Motorists kill nearly 200 pedestrians a year in Australia, but that toll is basically equated to weather in a car oriented society. Critical mass is but one of many things that remind people that cities should be designed for people, and not for cars.

Not so.

CM could better target those who are at fault but chose to penalise all road users, good or bad. That's where the problem lies.

They have the opportunity to ride at truckie/taxi/SUV meet ups, but instead they chose Fri peak hour for their deliberate actions when thousands of good drivers/public transport passengers are eager to return to their family and friends. That's the fundamental difference.

il padrone wrote:Friday afternoon is the time to get the message across, because now the drivers will notice a bunch of cyclists...... something they manage to avoid doing all the rest of the time they are on the road. And as I said earlier, it really does not slow them down

Good marketing is smart targeting of a specific cohort. Mass targeting of all road users (both pro and anti cycling) will only put people off side. Whilst a democratic society tolerates it, CM's mass marketing technique have had its glory and should be out the door and modified in 2012.

Motorists kill nearly 200 pedestrians a year in Australia, but that toll is basically equated to weather in a car oriented society. Critical mass is but one of many things that remind people that cities should be designed for people, and not for cars.

Not so.

CM could better target those who are at fault but chose to penalise all road users, good or bad. That's where the problem lies.

They have the opportunity to ride at truckie/taxi/SUV meet ups, but instead they chose Fri peak hour for their deliberate actions when thousands of good drivers/public transport passengers are eager to return to their family and friends. That's the fundamental difference.

The commuting mass in the single occupant vehicle is the problem. Not SUVs in particular, trucks or taxis.

The very heart of bicycle riding is short range commuting, and long range car commuters, and the crazy domination of urban design and facility utilisation and subisidising of long range commuting by short range commuters, whilst being bullied and forced off the transport infrastructure by long range commuters is in fact the heart of the problem, and those are in fact the people that were mildly inconvenienced once 9 years ago, and never really since by critical mass.

It did however publically remind motorists all over the state that cyclists are entitled to use the roads and that was and is a good thing, a thing worth doing.

Alien27 wrote:You may be right, you may be wrong, but your defiantly off topic. Like I said irrelevant. Just because there are crap and selfish drivers does not make it ok for Critical Mass to act like they did.

This is a thread about the disruption of traffic, and disruption of traffic is apparently what you dislike intensely, and the disruption of traffic is YOUR tangent.

Motorists kill nearly 200 pedestrians a year in Australia, but that toll is basically equated to weather in a car oriented society. Critical mass is but one of many things that remind people that cities should be designed for people, and not for cars.

I think that's a long bow to draw. That motorists kill 200 pedestrians a year is terrible but not relevant to the original question. The OP's original question was "Are they helping or hindering cycling?" To my way of thinking, I can not for the life of me see how they could be doing anything but damage to the greater cycling cause and I haven't read any argument in this thread yet, that makes me think different.

Like I said, it is not valid to say other people do bad things so its OK if we do bad things as well. Nor is it valid to say that because Critical Masses cause is noble, then their actions are justified. And unless I'm missing something, they are the only 2 pro CM arguments I have read so far.

Personally I would never join a critical mass rally, as I believe that unfortunately it creates more problems than it fixes.

........and yes again unfortunately I am one of those that gets agro in peak hour traffic, and therefore avoid it if at all possible.......even gave up an extremely well paid job in the CBD after 18 months because of the impossible traffic situation from the outer Eastern suburbs.

We cyclists should know their place and respect the dominant vehicles. Cyclists have no right to add to the traffic at the busy time of the day. Only those in a large motor vehicle have such rights. Those in CM have the audacity to expect to be able to ride on the roads during peak hour need to be put in their place. By prostrating ourselves to motorists and not getting in their way on the roads we ensure that Australia stays the cycling nirvana that it is.

Do you mean respect dominant vehicles??.As i read FEAR of dominant vehicles.....not respect.

Dont forget respect is a two way street. And clearly the balance is not what it should be.I think the cm is a good way to stand up for your believes.Nothing wrong with demanding respect if asking it is not enough.

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

zero wrote:The very heart of bicycle riding is short range commuting, and long range car commuters, and the crazy domination of urban design and facility utilisation and subisidising of long range commuting by short range commuters, whilst being bullied and forced off the transport infrastructure by long range commuters is in fact the heart of the problem, and those are in fact the people that were mildly inconvenienced once 9 years ago, and never really since by critical mass.

Well, then CM can get on with the time and protest to those who are in charge. In front of RTA and in front of parliament house.

It did however publically remind motorists all over the state that cyclists are entitled to use the roads and that was and is a good thing, a thing worth doing.

That message is getting pretty old here in Sydney, a generic protest procedure that carries mass collateral damage to the innocent.

zero wrote:The very heart of bicycle riding is short range commuting, and long range car commuters, and the crazy domination of urban design and facility utilisation and subisidising of long range commuting by short range commuters, whilst being bullied and forced off the transport infrastructure by long range commuters is in fact the heart of the problem, and those are in fact the people that were mildly inconvenienced once 9 years ago, and never really since by critical mass.

Well, then CM can get on with the time and protest to those who are in charge. In front of RTA and in front of parliament house.

It did however publically remind motorists all over the state that cyclists are entitled to use the roads and that was and is a good thing, a thing worth doing.

That message is getting pretty old here in Sydney, a generic protest procedure that carries mass collateral damage to the innocent.

My understanding is the current ride is not intentionally obstructionist.

Perhaps you should observe *this* CM and see whether they stop and if for any length of time and how many lanes they occupy, with how many people and how tight the overall group is. ie a large bunch of bicycles has 5 to 8 times the person density as single occupant motorists do (given the lane widths of the SHB), and at 15km/hr they comfortably exceed the maximum person capacity of the lanes as expressed in single occupant cars, regardless of speed of the motor vehicles (due to the need of motor vehicles to retain a fixed headway almost regardless of speed, and for the length of the vehicle to impact headway at low speeds).

Depending on the current operation of CM and the police escorting it, it may well increase the number of people crossing the SHB during peak. It is unlikely that it reduces the number of people crossing the SHB unless they are extensively obstructionist.

Alien27 wrote:You may be right, you may be wrong, but your defiantly off topic. Like I said irrelevant. Just because there are crap and selfish drivers does not make it ok for Critical Mass to act like they did.

This is a thread about the disruption of traffic, and disruption of traffic is apparently what you dislike intensely, and the disruption of traffic is YOUR tangent.

Motorists kill nearly 200 pedestrians a year in Australia, but that toll is basically equated to weather in a car oriented society. Critical mass is but one of many things that remind people that cities should be designed for people, and not for cars.

I think that's a long bow to draw. That motorists kill 200 pedestrians a year is terrible but not relevant to the original question. The OP's original question was "Are they helping or hindering cycling?" To my way of thinking, I can not for the life of me see how they could be doing anything but damage to the greater cycling cause and I haven't read any argument in this thread yet, that makes me think different.

CM points out that roads are for transporting people, and that mode of transport has to be accommodated, not banned, not bullied.

Like I said, it is not valid to say other people do bad things so its OK if we do bad things as well. Nor is it valid to say that because Critical Masses cause is noble, then their actions are justified. And unless I'm missing something, they are the only 2 pro CM arguments I have read so far.

Protest in a democracy requires numbers and presence. That is how a democracy works.

zero wrote:My understanding is the current ride is not intentionally obstructionist.

I hope so. If they have turned into a bike bus for bike commuters crossing the bridge, then good for them and I have no problem.

Depending on the current operation of CM and the police escorting it, it may well increase the number of people crossing the SHB during peak. It is unlikely that it reduces the number of people crossing the SHB unless they are extensively obstructionist.

If they just rode as individuals and filtered during vehicle stops or rode the bike path, people density could have been even higher with a packed bus in its spot. Ride free, isn't that the big advantage of being a bike commuter?

zero wrote:My understanding is the current ride is not intentionally obstructionist.

I hope so. If they have turned into a bike bus for bike commuters crossing the bridge, then good for them and I have no problem.

Depending on the current operation of CM and the police escorting it, it may well increase the number of people crossing the SHB during peak. It is unlikely that it reduces the number of people crossing the SHB unless they are extensively obstructionist.

If they just rode as individuals and filtered during vehicle stops or rode the bike path, people density could have been even higher with a packed bus in its spot. Ride free, isn't that the big advantage of being a bike commuter?

Sydney buses travelling over the SHB outbound are not terminal loaded, they are kerb loaded, and from kerbs on insufficient different streets. kerb loading is hopeless in itself as a single kerb station (or sequence of seperated single kerb stations) can only fill 1 bus every 20 seconds, and multi kerb stations without dedicated bus passing lanes just bottleneck each other.

Haven't been on one for a while, but at any non trivial speed, they seemed to be running 4 seconds of headway, which makes their effective road utilisation 33% at 30km/hr. They may run a little closer to cars because the driver can see over the cars, but mixed buses and cars isn't going to be better density than cyclists.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.